MURATA Makoto wrote:
> Since the same prefix can be bound to
> different namespaces, it is no longer possible to construct an equivalent
> XML 1.0 DTD from a collection of namespace-schema pairs. Then, what is
> the point of using prefixes? In my understanding, one reason that we
> chose colonization rather than reserved attributes is validation by XML 1.0
> parsers. This reason no longer exists. (Note: The other reason was
> qualification of attributes.)
More precisely, it's still possible to construct DTDs for validation,
but the DTD has to have the prefixes hard-coded into it, and the same
prefix cannot be used for two different namespaces unless there are no
overlapping element names (which cannot be guaranteed).
> One could argue that these two should always
> be in sync, but then what is the point of having the two? It would have
> been a lot simpler if we had introduced a reserved attribute for specifying
> the namespace of the element.
Absolutely.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org
You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn.
You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn.
Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)